A senseless loss. It irritates me to no end when people refer to DUI collisions as "accidents". There's not a single damn thing "accidental" about getting drunk and getting into a car. It's a premeditated act, and should be treated that way.

__________________
With every ride, I get a little stronger. I gain a little stamina. I gain a little pride. And so I await the next ride...

Why do we have to learn about this from a British on-line publication???

Davis is a very bike-friendly town. On the forefront of cycling infrastructure. The poor girl was in the bike lane.

WHEN IS THIS COUNTRY GOING TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT DRUNK DRIVING??? AND, HIT-AND-RUN DRIVING??? Isn't it about time that we, as a citizen population, put pressure on our legislators and judges to address this crisis.

- - - - -

So very sad for the family. And the loss of such a promising life.

__________________
Deut 6:5

---

"Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia'".
- Vizzini during his "battle of wits" with the Man in Black

We need a fast track execution system for people like this. They deserve immediate death, to be carried out in 4 months or less after a maximum of two appeals requests, to not only right what was wrong, but to keep the rest of the decent public safe from the harm these dangerous drunk punks cause when they get into their 4000 pound weapon blitzed. This fast track system would also have the added benefit of saving taxpayers a lot of money in housing costs for 5+ years.

We need a fast track execution system for people like this. They deserve immediate death, to be carried out in 4 months or less after a maximum of two appeals requests, to not only right what was wrong, but to keep the rest of the decent public safe from the harm these dangerous drunk punks cause when they get into their 4000 pound weapon blitzed. This fast track system would also have the added benefit of saving taxpayers a lot of money in housing costs for 5+ years.

Is this your idea of bicycling advocacy or jurisprudence, or both? Do you expect anything you post to be taken seriously by anybody besides bloodthirsty nut cases?

Is this your idea of bicycling advocacy or jurisprudence, or both? Do you expect anything you post to be taken seriously by anybody besides bloodthirsty nut cases?

A survey long ago showed that in my city roughly 50% of all motorists are drunk behind the wheel at any given time. Not New Years Day, not Labor Day Weekend - ANY given day. This is why I look at commuting as "going to war" and treat my ride as a survival mission behind enemy lines. Many who don't take this serious attitude end up brain dead (no judgement about the young lady in the story as I do not know her level of wariness).

Seems there are all types of "nutcases" in the world. Some of us wish for action to be taken on the front end i.e., "lock them up forever or fry them" and others (me) deal with the facts on the ground in order to survive the day by altering my actions. Other nutcases just shoot out random critiques on B.F.

Is this your idea of bicycling advocacy or jurisprudence, or both? Do you expect anything you post to be taken seriously by anybody besides bloodthirsty nut cases?

Let me know how you feel when someone you love has had their existence wiped out by a drunk punk and then see how you feel when said drunk punk gets out of jail in just 4 years and then heads back to jail for another DUI just 6 months later.

Let me know how you feel when someone you love has had their existence wiped out by a drunk punk and then see how you feel when said drunk punk gets out of jail in just 4 years and then heads back to jail for another DUI just 6 months later.

None of which justifies advocating for the rules that made Stalin so charming. There's a reason we have due process and limits on Government power.

Drunk driving or driving while on a cell phone and killing someone is premeditated murder in my book. It should be treated as such.

Also drunk driving after having been previously convicted. You've shown that you're incapable of making rational decisions about your capabilities when drunk, so either remove your ability to drive when drunk (IE don't drive to the bar or wherever in the first place so you have to take the same method back) or get professional help with your problem. If you decide to continue the same behavior then you have just demonstrated that you feel that your desire to get drunk outweighs the lives of innocent people, and therefore you're basically a murderer. You've taken an intentional decision to devalue human life. Or you're a moron who doesn't think these things through. Either way you should not be allowed to run free.

Also drunk driving after having been previously convicted. You've shown that you're incapable of making rational decisions about your capabilities when drunk, so either remove your ability to drive when drunk (IE don't drive to the bar or wherever in the first place so you have to take the same method back) or get professional help with your problem. If you decide to continue the same behavior then you have just demonstrated that you feel that your desire to get drunk outweighs the lives of innocent people, and therefore you're basically a murderer. You've taken an intentional decision to devalue human life. Or you're a moron who doesn't think these things through. Either way you should not be allowed to run free.

A couple of district attorneys in SoCal are taking this to heart. When they convict someone of drunk driving, they force them to sign a declaration that acknowledges their awareness of the high risk of killing someone if they choose to drive drunk. On more than one occasion, that declaration has been used to convict the drunk of second degree murder when they subsequently drove drunk and killed someone.

I'd like to see such a declaration be part of the licensing procedure so that a first offense results in a murder conviction. Same with distracted driving and speeding.

A couple of district attorneys in SoCal are taking this to heart. When they convict someone of drunk driving, they force them to sign a declaration that acknowledges their awareness of the high risk of killing someone if they choose to drive drunk. On more than one occasion, that declaration has been used to convict the drunk of second degree murder when they subsequently drove drunk and killed someone.

I'd like to see such a declaration be part of the licensing procedure so that a first offense results in a murder conviction. Same with distracted driving and speeding.

Sounds like you want to team up with the bicycling advocacy duo of the Queen of Hearts and the Mad Hatter to form a lynch mob. Is it your also opinion that driving infractions are capital offenses and violators are far move evil and profane than the worst serial killers and terrorist bombers and should be given the harshest sentence in the land?

Even Stalin wasn't prepared to put a murder conviction/death sentence on the majority of the population.

+1 to ILTB - The extremist idiocy being spouted on this forum lately is appalling. IT beyond my ability to even comment its so rank.

Edit According to the nhtsa excess speed is involved to some 11000-12000 traffic fatalities per year. For Becarfree , thats in excess of 30 state sponsored executions each and every day of the year - What a incredibly stupid concept.

A senseless loss. It irritates me to no end when people refer to DUI collisions as "accidents". There's not a single damn thing "accidental" about getting drunk and getting into a car. It's a premeditated act, and should be treated that way.

Yet, drivers under the influence had a diminished capacity when they made the decision to drive, and when the collision occurred. We treat them more severely in court than a sober person that was not diminished at the time of the collision.

Also drunk driving after having been previously convicted. You've shown that you're incapable of making rational decisions about your capabilities when drunk, so either remove your ability to drive when drunk (IE don't drive to the bar or wherever in the first place so you have to take the same method back) or get professional help with your problem. If you decide to continue the same behavior then you have just demonstrated that you feel that your desire to get drunk outweighs the lives of innocent people, and therefore you're basically a murderer. You've taken an intentional decision to devalue human life. Or you're a moron who doesn't think these things through. Either way you should not be allowed to run free.

+1 It amazes me that someone can get multiple DUI's and still drive.

I don't want this to devolve into a political debate,but I think it's pretty messed up that the Constitution says you can have a gun,but if you're convicted of a crime with a gun they'll take them away. But driving is only a privilege,yet people get DUI's,reckless driving,and even injure kill others,and yet are still able to drive.

If you do something that kills someone else do to negligence/stupidity,you should be barred from doing that for life,whatever that activity may be.

Sounds like you want to team up with the bicycling advocacy duo of the Queen of Hearts and the Mad Hatter to form a lynch mob. Is it your also opinion that driving infractions are capital offenses and violators are far move evil and profane than the worst serial killers and terrorist bombers and should be given the harshest sentence in the land?

Even Stalin wasn't prepared to put a murder conviction/death sentence on the majority of the population.

So, you think the driving privilege should extend to allowing people to ignore the training they allegedly received and behave in a way that slaughters tens of thousands of innocent people and maims millions per year without serious consequences and anyone who disagrees should be compared to some maniac dictator. What's the Stalin version of Godwin's Law? This, in spite of the fact that deadly motorists in this country are making real inroads into catching up to Stalin's death count. I argue that the operation of deadly machines in the public space should be restricted to those who have proper training and follow said training and that failure to do so should have serious, known consequences for the scofflaws. I agree that the majority of Americans do not concur. I'd love to hear some cogent arguments against such a proposition, but so far none are forthcoming.

As far as the lynch mob statement, get a grip. Nowhere do I advocate for a loss of due process rights for the accused. In fact, I argue for motorists to be greater informed of the consequences of their lawless actions.